Move `iPoseProofCore*` tactics up so others can depend on it.

theories/proofmode/ltac_tactics.v

@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ Tactic Notation "iRevert" "(" ident(x1) ident(x2) ident(x3) ident(x4)
     ident(x5) ident(x6) ident(x7) ident(x8) ")" constr(Hs) :=
   iRevert Hs; iRevert ( x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ).
 
-(** * Specialize *)
+(** * The specialize and pose proof tactics *)
 Record iTrm {X As S} :=
   ITrm { itrm : X ; itrm_vars : hlist As ; itrm_hyps : S }.
 Arguments ITrm {_ _ _} _ _ _.
@@ -606,6 +606,74 @@ Notation "( H $! x1 .. xn 'with' pat )" :=
   (ITrm H (hcons x1 .. (hcons xn hnil) ..) pat) (at level 0, x1, xn at level 9).
 Notation "( H 'with' pat )" := (ITrm H hnil pat) (at level 0).
 
+(* The tactic [iIntoEmpValid] tactic solves a goal [bi_emp_valid Q]. The
+argument [t] must be a Coq term whose type is of the following shape:
+
+[∀ (x_1 : A_1) .. (x_n : A_n), φ]
+
+and so that we have an instance `AsValid φ Q`.
+
+Examples of such [φ]s are
+
+- [bi_emp_valid P], in which case [Q] should be [P]
+- [P1 ⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 -∗ P2]
+- [P1 ⊣⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ↔ P2]
+
+The tactic instantiates each dependent argument [x_i] with an evar and generates
+a goal [R] for each non-dependent argument [x_i : R].  For example, if the
+original goal was [Q] and [t] has type [∀ x, P x → Q], then it generates an evar
+[?x] for [x] and a subgoal [P ?x]. *)
+Local Ltac iIntoEmpValid t :=
+  let go_specialize t tT :=
+    lazymatch tT with                (* We do not use hnf of tT, because, if
+                                        entailment is not opaque, then it would
+                                        unfold it. *)
+    | ?P → ?Q => let H := fresh in assert P as H; [|iIntoEmpValid uconstr:(t H); clear H]
+    | ∀ _ : ?T, _ =>
+      (* Put [T] inside an [id] to avoid TC inference from being invoked. *)
+      (* This is a workarround for Coq bug #6583. *)
+      let e := fresh in evar (e:id T);
+      let e' := eval unfold e in e in clear e; iIntoEmpValid (t e')
+    end
+  in
+    (* We try two reduction tactics for the type of t before trying to
+       specialize it. We first try the head normal form in order to
+       unfold all the definition that could hide an entailment.  Then,
+       we try the much weaker [eval cbv zeta], because entailment is
+       not necessarilly opaque, and could be unfolded by [hnf].
+
+       However, for calling type class search, we only use [cbv zeta]
+       in order to make sure we do not unfold [bi_emp_valid]. *)
+    let tT := type of t in
+    first
+      [ let tT' := eval hnf in tT in go_specialize t tT'
+      | let tT' := eval cbv zeta in tT in go_specialize t tT'
+      | let tT' := eval cbv zeta in tT in
+        notypeclasses refine (as_emp_valid_1 tT _ _);
+          [iSolveTC || fail 1 "iPoseProof: not a BI assertion"
+          |exact t]].
+
+Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCoreHyp" constr(H) "as" constr(Hnew) :=
+  eapply tac_pose_proof_hyp with _ _ H _ Hnew _;
+    [pm_reflexivity ||
+     let H := pretty_ident H in
+     fail "iPoseProof:" H "not found"
+    |pm_reflexivity ||
+     let Htmp := pretty_ident Hnew in
+     fail "iPoseProof:" Hnew "not fresh"
+    |].
+
+Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCoreLem"
+    constr(lem) "as" constr(Hnew) "before_tc" tactic(tac) :=
+  eapply tac_pose_proof with _ Hnew _; (* (j:=H) *)
+    [iIntoEmpValid lem
+    |pm_reflexivity ||
+     let Htmp := pretty_ident Hnew in
+     fail "iPoseProof:" Hnew "not fresh"
+    |tac];
+  (* Solve all remaining TC premises generated by [iIntoEmpValid] *)
+  try iSolveTC.
+
 (** There is some hacky stuff going on here: because of Coq bug #6583, unresolved
 type classes in the arguments `xs` are resolved at arbitrary moments. Tactics
 like `apply`, `split` and `eexists` wrongly trigger type class search to resolve
@@ -807,75 +875,6 @@ Tactic Notation "iSpecialize" open_constr(t) :=
 Tactic Notation "iSpecialize" open_constr(t) "as" "#" :=
   iSpecializeCore t as true.
 
-(** * Pose proof *)
-(* The tactic [iIntoEmpValid] tactic solves a goal [bi_emp_valid Q]. The
-argument [t] must be a Coq term whose type is of the following shape:
-
-[∀ (x_1 : A_1) .. (x_n : A_n), φ]
-
-and so that we have an instance `AsValid φ Q`.
-
-Examples of such [φ]s are
-
-- [bi_emp_valid P], in which case [Q] should be [P]
-- [P1 ⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 -∗ P2]
-- [P1 ⊣⊢ P2], in which case [Q] should be [P1 ↔ P2]
-
-The tactic instantiates each dependent argument [x_i] with an evar and generates
-a goal [R] for each non-dependent argument [x_i : R].  For example, if the
-original goal was [Q] and [t] has type [∀ x, P x → Q], then it generates an evar
-[?x] for [x] and a subgoal [P ?x]. *)
-Local Ltac iIntoEmpValid t :=
-  let go_specialize t tT :=
-    lazymatch tT with                (* We do not use hnf of tT, because, if
-                                        entailment is not opaque, then it would
-                                        unfold it. *)
-    | ?P → ?Q => let H := fresh in assert P as H; [|iIntoEmpValid uconstr:(t H); clear H]
-    | ∀ _ : ?T, _ =>
-      (* Put [T] inside an [id] to avoid TC inference from being invoked. *)
-      (* This is a workarround for Coq bug #6583. *)
-      let e := fresh in evar (e:id T);
-      let e' := eval unfold e in e in clear e; iIntoEmpValid (t e')
-    end
-  in
-    (* We try two reduction tactics for the type of t before trying to
-       specialize it. We first try the head normal form in order to
-       unfold all the definition that could hide an entailment.  Then,
-       we try the much weaker [eval cbv zeta], because entailment is
-       not necessarilly opaque, and could be unfolded by [hnf].
-
-       However, for calling type class search, we only use [cbv zeta]
-       in order to make sure we do not unfold [bi_emp_valid]. *)
-    let tT := type of t in
-    first
-      [ let tT' := eval hnf in tT in go_specialize t tT'
-      | let tT' := eval cbv zeta in tT in go_specialize t tT'
-      | let tT' := eval cbv zeta in tT in
-        notypeclasses refine (as_emp_valid_1 tT _ _);
-          [iSolveTC || fail 1 "iPoseProof: not a BI assertion"
-          |exact t]].
-
-Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCoreHyp" constr(H) "as" constr(Hnew) :=
-  eapply tac_pose_proof_hyp with _ _ H _ Hnew _;
-    [pm_reflexivity ||
-     let H := pretty_ident H in
-     fail "iPoseProof:" H "not found"
-    |pm_reflexivity ||
-     let Htmp := pretty_ident Hnew in
-     fail "iPoseProof:" Hnew "not fresh"
-    |].
-
-Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCoreLem"
-    constr(lem) "as" constr(Hnew) "before_tc" tactic(tac) :=
-  eapply tac_pose_proof with _ Hnew _; (* (j:=H) *)
-    [iIntoEmpValid lem
-    |pm_reflexivity ||
-     let Htmp := pretty_ident Hnew in
-     fail "iPoseProof:" Hnew "not fresh"
-    |tac];
-  (* Solve all remaining TC premises generated by [iIntoEmpValid] *)
-  try iSolveTC.
-
 (** The tactic [iPoseProofCore lem as p lazy_tc tac] inserts the resource
 described by [lem] into the context. The tactic takes a continuation [tac] as
 its argument, which is called with a temporary fresh name [H] that refers to
@@ -920,6 +919,7 @@ Tactic Notation "iPoseProofCore" open_constr(lem)
      end
   end.
 
+(** * The apply tactic *)
 (** [iApply lem] takes an argument [lem : P₁ -∗ .. -∗ Pₙ -∗ Q] (after the
 specialization patterns in [lem] have been executed), where [Q] should match
 the goal, and generates new goals [P1] ... [Pₙ]. Depending on the number of